goal_update

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations are all false (non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent), which the description complements by stating it 'adds money' (a mutation) and 'returns updated goal progress.' However, it does not disclose potential side effects or error conditions, leaving some behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise: one sentence plus Args/Returns sections. No unnecessary words. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but it is efficient and front-loaded with the action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Output schema exists, so the return description is sufficient. However, the tool lacks context on when to use it (e.g., only for existing goals) and does not mention error handling. Given sibling tools and simple interface, it is moderately complete but not thorough.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the top-level parameter, but the nested schema has descriptions for 'name' and 'amount'. The description restates that the input is an 'UpdateGoalInput with goal name and amount,' adding minimal value beyond the schema. Adequate but not compensating fully for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Add money toward a savings goal,' specifying a concrete action (add) and resource (goal). It distinguishes from sibling tools like goal_create (create new) and goal_list (list), making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., goal must exist), nor does it clarify that this tool is only for adding funds (not updating other fields). Implicitly clear but lacking explicit context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.